Jump to content

Talk:Russian battleship Navarin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRussian battleship Navarin has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 15, 2012Good article nomineeListed

Raised for scrap from the bottom of the sea ?

[edit]

The last sentence says the ship was sold for scrap in 1922. How was this ship raised from the bottom of the sea of japan ? Was it really sunk in the first place ? Or was the 1922 reference to it being sold for scrap, actually refering to a completely different ship ?Eregli bob (talk) 06:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reference is pretty clear that the ship was the Navarin. Notice how most of the other ships listed were in the Second Pacific Squadron. --Ceradon talkcontribs 08:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well until today it said "Navaro".

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Russian battleship Navarin/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk · contribs) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have my initial comments up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    • Design and description, "This unusual arrangement gave the ship her unusual nickname of Factory" - unusual...unusual
    • Oh my, yes.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    • This photo wasn't even in the article, but I'm now using File:Battleship Navarin.jpg which is sourced to Cassell's History of the Russo-Japanese War, published in 1905.
    • Deleted this one.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

One prose niggle and (the main reason I'm holding instead of immediately passing) both images have licensing problems. Once these are addressed, I think the article should be good to go. Dana boomer (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:17, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everything looks good, so now passing to GA. Dana boomer (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]